Google director: Early adoption is for rich chumps

New technology isn't good until it's cheap.

Ray Kurzweil, a director of engineering at Google, addressing the crowd at the GF 2045 conference.

Casey Johnston

Rich people get all the cool stuff first—or so we in the middle class grumble and gripe to one another. Cell phones, laptops, smartphones, and now Google Glass (if applicants managed to both present a convincing case and pony up $1,500) all end up in the hands of the wealthy first. But Google Director of Engineering Ray Kurzweil made a salient point while addressing the Global Future 2045 conference this past weekend: “Only the rich have these technologies when they don’t work.”

Kurzweil, a futurist and author of the book The Singularity is Near, did a presentation at the GF 2045 conference entitled “Immortality by 2045” in which he discussed the evolution of humans and technology and how the two will one day merge. During a Q&A at the end of the presentation, one attendant expressed concern that when people have the possibility of fixing their bodies up with memory implants and bionic limbs and then eventually transferring their consciousness to a nice new android when their current body dies, it will only be the richest people in the world who will be able to afford those luxuries. The attendant called these pursuits “a privilege of the rich and powerful.”

Kurzweil came back with a description of the earliest cell phones: massive contraptions that required people to carry around some of the components in a bag. For instance, the earliest Motorola Dynatac phone released in 1984 cost $3,995, had only 30 minutes of talk time, and stored 30 phone numbers. Nearly 20 years later, smartphones replace several single-purpose gadgets, connect us socially to countries’ worth of people, and store large amounts of apps, photos, and video—all while costing just $200 on a contract.

Kurzweil’s point was that new technology is expensive when it still pretty much sucks; we just lack the perspective to realize that when said technologies are first emerging. “When [new technologies] work, they’re almost free or very inexpensive,” Kurzweil said. For someone working for a company driven forward by the early-adopter mentality, Kurzweil’s perspective is refreshing: if something seems wildly expensive, especially in the perpetual-betapoint-release times we live in, it’s just not ready yet.

Another ready example is flat-panel HDTVs. The first few models were very heavy and susceptible to image burn-in, and there was simply nothing to watch in HD. These sets also cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now, HDTVs are better-constructed and there is plenty to watch, and they cost a few hundred dollars.

Early adopters still have the advantage of ownership and can tell non-owners, self-satisfied, that their new gadget is changing the world. But it hasn’t changed the world yet. And it won’t, and can’t, until it does get less expensive and make its way into the hands of all the other late adopters.

The conversation doesn’t apply as well to software, which has a fuzzy economic history that’s too intertwined with hardware to isolate in this sense. Gmail is free and lots of people use it, so it works (or as best as it needs to, most of the time). But Linux is free, and while it does “work” for many people, it hasn’t achieved the popularity of Windows.

But Kurzweil’s point is likely extensible to Google’s smart glasses. Right now, they’re expensive and don’t do a whole lot other than take pictures and pop up alerts. Eventually, they will cost a fraction of what they do now, and their functionality now is a fraction of what it will be. They could get to that level, popularity-wise, so long as Google puts a damper on the creepiness factor.

So, envious would-be Google Glass owners or would-be owners of any new flashy piece of kit: sit back and relax. You’re not waiting for the price to come down; you’re waiting for the product to be good—if that ever happens.

I agree with the man. I remember the early days of digital cameras myself. Bodies were expensive, of very low pixel count, and offered far less dynamic range compare to film. Early adapters were either very rich or needed instant results very badly. Today even medium-level bodies out-resolve 135 film, and they can be had a fraction of the camera sticker prices in 1990.

There is a lot of potential in Glass - I can see a future where we read off our glasses and receive a constant overlay of data on the world in our eyes. But for the moment we have to deal with $1500 chunky frames that only show notifications. It's the Canon 10D of HMDs, so to speak - but one day there will be a 60D

Completely obvious. Always been that way. People with money pay a lot for the first version, which allows the company funds to make a better version for less money.

Unfortunately some people either don't understand this process, or actually want to stop technology from progressing. With the way people are demanding that health care become a right, with the expensive new techniques being available to all, expect progress in medicine and healthcare technology to slow down immensely. Without rich people (and with medicine specifically, rich countries) subsidizing the development of this stuff, it's not going to get developed.

Am I the only one dreading Google Glass? Not because Google, or Privacy, or too much tech. Mostly because if it's going to be useful I need to wear it (nearly) all the time. And, well, it still looks stupid and there's no way they can make it light enough to be comfortable with today's batteries.

To be fair to the guy, he was simply answering a question. That the answer was obvious should reflect more on the person asking the question than the person answering it.

That said, any new technology is likely to be controlled by the pharma industry, which has a great habit of simply refining techniques and keeping prices high rather than letting it come down over time. It'll happen eventually, but not general affordability within 20 years like a cell phone.

1) Google glass is particularly creepy in a way few nex-gen consumer products have been in the past. I mean, there's been plenty of new-fangled items where I've thought "meh". The Segway comes to mind. But I can't remember the last time something like that was announced and I thought "there's something particularly creepy about that".

2) That graphic of all the cell phones would be even cooler if it were the real phones, and not just CG simulacra.

Am I the only one dreading Google Glass? Not because Google, or Privacy, or too much tech. Mostly because if it's going to be useful I need to wear it (nearly) all the time. And, well, it still looks stupid and there's no way they can make it light enough to be comfortable with today's batteries.

I just put down his second book in the Singularity series literally five minutes before I checked my news feed and found this. The reason I put it down is 'cause it kind of sucks. First book was ok, second was lame. I'm about 60% in and don't intend on finishing it. It's funny too because he actually self refrences himsself and some of his work in the plot.

Typical Kurzweil, passing off obvious statements as great profundities and using those to pretend his more outlandish arguments have something other than his say-so behind them.

If you haven't read the man's history or paid any real attention to him, I could see where one might come to such conclusions.

I don't ascribe genius to anyone, but Kurzweil is a brilliant guy with a very strong history, hand's on touch, and understanding of the flow of technology growth, adoption, and "mutation" for lack of a better term. I'd sling less stones and pay more attention - certainly question everything, but do so intelligently.

For instance, the earliest Motorola Dynatac phone released in 1984 cost $3,995, had only 30 minutes of talk time, and stored 30 phone numbers. Nearly 20 years later, smartphones replace several single-purpose gadgets, connect us socially to countries’ worth of people, and store large amounts of apps, photos, and video—all while costing just $200 on a contract.

Casey, I know we're all getting older, and this is going to suck hearing this, but you left out a decade.

If you haven't read the man's history or paid any real attention to him, I could see where one might come to such conclusions.

I don't ascribe genius to anyone, but Kurzweil is a brilliant guy with a very strong history, hand's on touch, and understanding of the flow of technology growth, adoption, and "mutation" for lack of a better term. I'd sling less stones and pay more attention - certainly question everything, but do so intelligently.

I'm well aware of Kurzweil's history. Yes, he was a brilliant engineer who developed some really groundbreaking things but since he has moved away from design and into prediction and punditry he has somewhat gone off the rails. Yes some of his predictions are correct but those aren't the interesting ones, his correct predictions are rarely novel and his interesting predictions have consistently proven outrageously wrong unless you read them very generously.

Health care, however, seems to buck this trend. Expensive life saving medications stay expensive (except for the knock-offs manufactured in places like India); expensive surgeries and technologies stay expensive.

So the question posed by the audience member is pertinent: will this kind of technology which has a health purpose economically behave like technology... or like health care?

On the one hand you're right. But there have been rather large advances. Mainly you see them not so much in how much a surgery costs but in how quickly one recovers from the surgery. You also see what were once major procedures requiring weeks in the hospital now being done as outpatient procedures in surgical centers.

Case in point, I recently had sinus surgery. They had to go in, cut out a lot of tissue, grind out some bone etc. Just a few years ago that would have been done in a full hospital with at least 2 days in a room recovering followed by weeks of intensely painful recovery.

Today, it was done endoscopically (sp?) as a minor outpatient procedure. My recovery was literally 24 hours of bed rest followed by 3 days of light activity. Pain was low and in less than 2 weeks I was able to go back to my normal work and gym routines.

In all, many once major procedures are now considered minor and are done quickly, with less pain, faster recovery and lower bills.

Granted, other procedures still cost as much as they always did. MRI's for example. Still crazy expensive. They give far better details that before but the prices have never really dropped.

So you're right and wrong. (Or perhaps correct and incorrect as that may sound nicer?) It mostly now depends on the procedure in question.

Typical Kurzweil, passing off obvious statements as great profundities and using those to pretend his more outlandish arguments have something other than his say-so behind them.

If you haven't read the man's history or paid any real attention to him, I could see where one might come to such conclusions.

I don't ascribe genius to anyone, but Kurzweil is a brilliant guy with a very strong history, hand's on touch, and understanding of the flow of technology growth, adoption, and "mutation" for lack of a better term. I'd sling less stones and pay more attention - certainly question everything, but do so intelligently.

I first heard about Kurzweill in when he'd invented the first optical-text-scanner-to-speech-synthesizer designed to let blind people read printed texts. Even with all the advancements since then, I look back and find myself amazed he got all of that to work back in 1976. Think about that... before there really was such thing as a Home Computer, Kurzweill had built a table-top OCR/speech-synthesizer.

Don't get me wrong, I still find his futurist predictions pretty much drivel, but I have a level of respect for him that exceeds most "futurists", who I generally think of as complete cranks.

EDIT: fierydemise said it above better than I did. He "went off the rails" at some point. But I've always retained a little more respect for him than other "off the rails" futurists, perhaps only because of stuff he did 20-25 years ago.

Truth be told, it's all relative. Cell phones today will be considered "early adopted" by tomorrow's standards, and will likely be much less feature-rich while much more expensive per what they were capable of, even if actual prices don't come down that much.

I don't consider myself rich by any reasonable standard of what wealth is defined as in this country, but I still paid about 2K for a 37" plasma less than 10 years ago. Today, I see articles about high-end HDTV's that cost in that range and they are defined as "for the rich". It's silly...

My 2012 LED panel surpasses that Panny set in every way (well, save for viewing angle, lol). And that LED is bigger yet less than half the cost.

1) Google glass is particularly creepy in a way few nex-gen consumer products have been in the past. I mean, there's been plenty of new-fangled items where I've thought "meh". The Segway comes to mind. But I can't remember the last time something like that was announced and I thought "there's something particularly creepy about that".

2) That graphic of all the cell phones would be even cooler if it were the real phones, and not just CG simulacra.

If you click through, you'll see that they're actually a set of nesting dolls designed by Kyle Bean. There are more photos of him taking them apart/putting them together.

Health care, however, seems to buck this trend. Expensive life saving medications stay expensive (except for the knock-offs manufactured in places like India); expensive surgeries and technologies stay expensive.

That's because most medical care is fourth party payer. There is effectively no price pressure. Compare most healthcare to LASIK. I got mine when it was $4000.00/eye back in the '90s. It was well worth it. Now it's much cheaper and still more effective.

1) Google glass is particularly creepy in a way few nex-gen consumer products have been in the past. I mean, there's been plenty of new-fangled items where I've thought "meh". The Segway comes to mind. But I can't remember the last time something like that was announced and I thought "there's something particularly creepy about that".

2) That graphic of all the cell phones would be even cooler if it were the real phones, and not just CG simulacra.

If you click through, you'll see that they're actual a set of nesting dolls designed by Kyle Bean. There are more photos of him taking them apart/putting them together.

1) Google glass is particularly creepy in a way few nex-gen consumer products have been in the past. I mean, there's been plenty of new-fangled items where I've thought "meh". The Segway comes to mind. But I can't remember the last time something like that was announced and I thought "there's something particularly creepy about that".

2) That graphic of all the cell phones would be even cooler if it were the real phones, and not just CG simulacra.

If you click through, you'll see that they're actual a set of nesting dolls designed by Kyle Bean. There are more photos of him taking them apart/putting them together.

Am I the only one dreading Google Glass? Not because Google, or Privacy, or too much tech. Mostly because if it's going to be useful I need to wear it (nearly) all the time. And, well, it still looks stupid and there's no way they can make it light enough to be comfortable with today's batteries.

The Google contact lenses will look much less stupid.

Unless I missed a big revolution in battery tech or wireless power transmission, we don't have the technology to make that. Even if you have a billion dollars to spend, we simply can't make that...

Interesting play on the android bodies,etc, living forever, although if you are older, you are going to need to be rich to make it far enough with the health benefits these new technologies bring within 50 years will give us, as science becomes really weird. It is going to be extremely expensive at first, and take much time to perfect. Clearly people with the money, like ... Lil Wayne, are jumping the gun on science being able to "save us/them" from the bodily damage we/they do (as he enters another coma.... ) haha. So it might not matter anyways, but yes in the future it seems quite rhetorical to say that, the ability to live for endless amounts of time/ a longg period of time, will be inevitably true, 1000 years from now or a 100 .

Am I the only one dreading Google Glass? Not because Google, or Privacy, or too much tech. Mostly because if it's going to be useful I need to wear it (nearly) all the time. And, well, it still looks stupid and there's no way they can make it light enough to be comfortable with today's batteries.

The Google contact lenses will look much less stupid.

Unless I missed a big revolution in battery tech or wireless power transmission, we don't have the technology to make that. Even if you have a billion dollars to spend, we simply can't make that...

It's a damned good thing you don't work for a tech company. Or wouldn't for very long, with that attitude.

Unless I missed a big revolution in battery tech or wireless power transmission, we don't have the technology to make that. Even if you have a billion dollars to spend, we simply can't make that...

1: Calculate the energy density of a circa-1800 galvanic cell, a 1970s NiCad cell, and a top end Li-ion cell today. 2: Fit an exponential curve to those points, extrapolate that sufficient battery power in the volume of a contact lens is inevitable in 20 years or less. 3: Another hard problem solved by Kurzweil engineering!

I don't ascribe genius to anyone, but Kurzweil is a brilliant guy with a very strong history, hand's on touch, and understanding of the flow of technology growth, adoption, and "mutation" for lack of a better term. I'd sling less stones and pay more attention - certainly question everything, but do so intelligently.

He is kind of a wacko when it comes to life extension. He takes over 100 snake oil pills/day with essentially no evidence to their benefit in hopes of extending his life.